Erm, do I look worried? No of course not. Purely cyclical and nothing to wet your knickers over. But I guess there will always be those who love disaster porn and they will still believe the world is going to end.

…does this mean the khazar proselytes are not really from the tribe of Judah, and can notwithstanding the vicissitudes of climatological fluctuations make Exodus to kazaria thereby postponing aramgeddon ?

can I still complain about stupidity if I don’t register to vote for two zionist sock puppets…?

does steel still melt at a higher temperature than fuel oil burns…AT ?

What bothers me most is how some (on both sides of this discussion) are like religious fanatics, complete with name-calling. I’ve looked at a great deal of the data and am convinced we’re in a long term warming cycle. i’m not convinced it is biogenic, but nobody knows with certainty. I’m just a lowly engineer, so really not qualified to say much more. Guessing some of the more adamant comments here are from climatologists.

I respect both sides of the discussion because there is meaningful data in both camps. But religion, this is not.

Sparks said, “Susan that is just like saying, as Ice melts in a class of water, the water will overflow from the glass.” Correct, sea ice won’t contribute, but melting glaciers and permafrost are increasing sea level up to around 3mm/yr (up from 1.5mm/yr 20 years ago). And the rate of change is measurably increasing YOY.

Adjusted data is often required in sample sets. Granted, “weighting” is sometimes subject to interpretation. But you’re saying the folks of NOAA are doing fraudulent science to fit a “warming agenda?” That’s a serious charge, but not unprecedented given USGS’s energy reserves data. I’m personally trusting our “government by highest bidder” less and less.

That said, significant other data seems to correlate with a global temp rise over the last few decades. I’ll spare you a list of URLs.

I can’t find a single internationally recognized scientific organization who takes a contrary position on global temperature rise. Are there any? I do realize there are individual scientists, like yourself, who dissent from consensus. But most of those in the minority seem to be arguing AGW, not temperature rise as a measured reality.

Like I said, I don’t have a religious horse in this race, but from an “impartial” scientist’s perspective (Ok, engineer, not a real scientist), global temp rise seems highly probable.

The sea level rise began after the last Ice-age, oceans expanded and they began releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere, we are near, at or over the peak of this interglacial period, it is normal natural cycles of glaciation and interglacial periods that drive sea level and CO2, not humans. An as Steven points out “the temperature data is massively tampered with”, data used to convince the world of an anthropogenic global warming catastrophe, the wise thing to do is be skeptical to the overstated anthropogenic ingredient being pushed into the science.
BTW Arctic sea-ice will not contribute to sea level, unless it melts and forms again over land, in that case sea-levels should begin to fall, Oh… look at the Antarctic, Funny how science works when a bit of thought is used.